Recommended Posts

100% agree with @Andrew Reid article.This camera is a rip off as is Canon.
I disagree with people who disagree. It should not remain silent and in 2018 consumers should not allow such a brand to perform like this.
Can't believe someone can buy an Eos R. You like stills, buy a Z7 with way better IQ and specs. You want video, get a Nikon, Sony or Panasonic. Canon is far behind in 95% of stuff. They got AF that's all and it's not like Z7 and A7III AF is bad... Stop saying you have Canon lenses you can adapt so an Eos R can be useful. That's how the company got your balls secured, selling you the lens then for 10 years you buy their absolute shit cameras one after the other, like if you were in jail. Just sell those god damn lens and be done with this scam company .... How can one even make a choice based on the fact he has lens, who told you not to sell them. I changed 5 times camera systems in the last couple of years, didn't have any issue with that at all.

This has been Canon's modus operandi since the DSLR started to become a mature product category...and Nikon has a pedigree of this too (once refusing to jump into the FF market at all, their marketing from that era is hilarious). But Nikon kind of got off of their asses. Just go back to 2008 and look at the 5DII vs the D700. The D700 was a far more advanced stills camera. 5DII used essentially the same AF system as the original 5D and added a 21mp sensor that tended to show pattern noise in the blacks. The D700 had a whopping 51 AF points, better weather sealing, a great auto ISO implementation (would take Canon years to replicate that), an arguably better performing sensor. Oh, the 5DII could shoot video...and the rest is history. But the point is, Canon has been performing like this for at least a decade. They just happen to make good enough cameras and have an outstanding EF lens ecosystem.

12 minutes ago, shorty15 said:

Why are people so pissed off about this camera? This is a photography camera. Its designed to take stills. Video is and should be an afterthought. Why are people using mirrorless cameras for video work? The form factor sucks. It's like using a Porsche to haul stuff from Home Depot. It sorta works but its way more trouble than its worth. I still can't wrap my head around it. I used to shoot on a DSLR before moving on to a C200. I can't imagine going back to a mirrorless for video work.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why are people so pissed off about this camera? This is a photography camera. Its designed to take stills. Video is and should be an afterthought. Why are people using mirrorless cameras for video work? The form factor sucks. It's like using a Porsche to haul stuff from Home Depot. It sorta works but its way more trouble than its worth. I still can't wrap my head around it. I used to shoot on a DSLR before moving on to a C200. I can't imagine going back to a mirrorless for video work.

You are preaching to the wrong crowd. A hybrid shooter is all about democratizing the video/photo field - make it cheap to achieve professional results if you are willing to learn how and put in the work.

After you pay your dues with a DSLR/mirrorless, you move on to big, professional gear (you probably don't make your first commercial for a friends business using a Canon C200).

And then there is the casual crowd, like myself - we deserve to be able to preserve our memories in the best kind of quality available and that is no-crop 4K in 2018.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jesus Christ, you people are such nerds. There are so many cameras available on the market, just pick your poison and CREATE SOMETHING! This endless droning about this company or camera being better than that company or camera is pointless.

You don’t like the 4K crop in the EOS-R, then shoot 1080p or buy a Z6 or an a7iii... it’s quite simple.

I’m not thrilled with the crop but the camera has a lot of other perks that make it a contender for me as a hybrid. I look at any 4K video option, cropped or not, as icing on the cake. I’ll rarely shoot 4K and when I do, I’ll have more compact lens options with a thick codec. I’ll have the definitive best AF in the industry. And I’ll have great focus aids for my manual lenses. Any and all lenses I have that are native EF, or adapted to EF, will have a built in ND in the adapter. I’ll have internal Canon Log for 1080p and 4K and 10bit for external 4K. I’ll have an articulating screen and what seems to be excellent ergonomics.

For me, this camera can be very useful. But so could the Z6. Or a GH5. Or an X-T3. So instead of spending your days bashing other brands to justify your purchases, why not go out into the world with your camera of choice and shoot something. I swear you’ll forget all about your problems with the EOS-R.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. It just came out today. Spend our days? We're more than allowed to complain - especially those of us excited about getting this camera and have now been let down. I've owned a few 5d3's, the 70d, 2 C100's, 1dxII, 2 1dc's, 3-4 1dx's, Rebels, and just about every lens Canon makes including 300 2.8's. Am I not allowed to bitch on release day when I'm disappointed?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

100% agree with @Andrew Reid article.This camera is a rip off as is Canon.
I disagree with people who disagree. It should not remain silent and in 2018 consumers should not allow such a brand to perform like this.
Can't believe someone can buy an Eos R. You like stills, buy a Z7 with way better IQ and specs. You want video, get a Nikon, Sony or Panasonic. Canon is far behind in 95% of stuff. They got AF that's all and it's not like Z7 and A7III AF is bad... Stop saying you have Canon lenses you can adapt so an Eos R can be useful. That's how the company got your balls secured, selling you the lens then for 10 years you buy their absolute shit cameras one after the other, like if you were in jail. Just sell those god damn lens and be done with this scam company .... How can one even make a choice based on the fact he has lens, who told you not to sell them. I changed 5 times camera systems in the last couple of years, didn't have any issue with that at all.

@mercer you﻿ comment﻿ is a non sense, we are here to discuss c﻿ameras. People spend time shooting do not worry for them. That does not prevent them to speak and debate about cameras here. BTW you have 5630 posts on EOSHD, are you not out into the world with you camera shooting...?

Good lord... when did I say people shouldn’t debate or discuss cameras? Obviously, I have a shit ton of posts and that’s why I’m here. But I don’t waste my precious time, going into camera threads that I have no intention of ever buying just to bash it. These are the people I’m talking about. I also am not going to cry over a camera not having features I want/need like a little baby. It’s an effin camera. I’ve seen your work, you are a talented guy. I’m sure you could go out with a t2i or an a6000 and make great videos, so I wasn’t even talking about you.

1 minute ago, Shield3 said:

Methinks thou doth protest too much. It just came out today. Spend our days? We're more than allowed to complain - especially those of us excited about getting this camera and have now been let down. I've owned a few 5d3's, the 70d, 2 C100's, 1dxII, 2 1dc's, 3-4 1dx's, Rebels, and just about every lens Canon makes including 300 2.8's. Am I not allowed to bitch on release day when I'm disappointed?

Methinks you doth a dork. “Let down...” it’s a goddamned camera for Christ’s sake. I was let down as soon as they introduced a new mount... I think it was a moronic move on Canon’s part. But as I just wrote to Wolf whatever... I wasn’t talking about you anyway. I’m not talking about disappointed people, I’m referring to the trolls that only appear during Canon releases, or the fanboys that have nothing better to do than poke around here. I know you’ve shot with a bunch of cameras and are brand agnostic, and I believe that this doesn’t suit your needs. It doesn’t suit mine 100% either but it doesn’t mean it is entire crap and that the camera doesn’t have a bunch of interesting features.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why are people so pissed off about this camera? This is a photography camera. Its designed to take stills. Video is and should be an afterthought. Why are people using mirrorless cameras for video work? The form factor sucks. It's like using a Porsche to haul stuff from Home Depot. It sorta works but its way more trouble than its worth. I still can't wrap my head around it. I used to shoot on a DSLR before moving on to a C200. I can't imagine going back to a mirrorless for video work.

Hoo boy. Yeah, it's very inconspicuous to roll up with a fully rigged C200 - no one would ever think you're not shooting video there pal. It's nice to have a small camera where the situation requires it - gimbal work is much easier among 1000 other reasons. Poor analogy too by the way - you can easily create stunning shots with a small mirrorless camera - I mean we're talking about max 8.3 megapixel 4x. I'll bet your c200 is overkill for most of what we want to use video cameras for really. Paid gigs, sure. Very limiting though when it comes to being a wallflower - often times people think I'm shooting stills and I'm rolling video.

Tell me why, pray tell *should* it be an afterthought? Because you think so? Oh yeah, no everyone has $7k to splash down on a c200....

You will always get compromised image quality and ergonomics from a jack of all trades, master of none camera. I wouldn't shoot a movie on a mirrorless camera and I certainly would shoot wedding photos on an Arri Alexa. I used to get upset about the poor quality of video implementation for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras before I realized that you can only get so much quality out of a tiny body with no active cooling. When I first got my C200, I did a side by side with my buddies A7SII and it was night and day how much higher quality the C200 RAW footage was in terms of detail, dynamic range, and post grading robustness. The mirrorless form factor simply can't accommodate the hardware required to get a commercial and cinema-grade image. Furthermore, the sensor in a hybrid needs to balance stills and video performance which always negatively affects the video quality.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Good lord... when did I say people shouldn’t debate or discuss cameras? Obviously, I have a shit ton of posts and that’s why I’m here. But I don’t waste my precious time, going into camera threads that I have no intention of ever buying just to bash it. These are the people I’m talking about. I also am not going to cry over a camera not having features I want/need like a little baby. It’s an effin camera. I’ve seen your work, you are a talented guy. I’m sure you could go out with a t2i or an a6000 and make great videos, so I wasn’t even talking about you.

Methinks you doth a dork. “Let down...” it’s a goddamned camera for Christ’s sake. I was let down as soon as they introduced a new mount... I think it was a moronic move on Canon’s part. But as I just wrote to Wolf whatever... I wasn’t talking about you anyway. I’m not talking about disappointed people, I’m referring to the trolls that only appear during Canon releases, or the fanboys that have nothing better to do than poke around here. I know you’ve shot with a bunch of cameras and are brand agnostic, and I believe that this doesn’t suit your needs. It doesn’t suit mine 100% either but it doesn’t mean it is entire crap and that the camera doesn’t have a bunch of interesting features.

Guess you never read any Shakespeare. Some mouth on you Mercer - geesh.

The frustrating part for me is you know damn well Canon *could have* done better with this one. No 4k60? No 1080p120? The a6000 had the latter, and the 2 year old 1dxII had the former upon release. I always have considered myself a Canon person at heart - just so pissed they're holding back - they're not listening to customers like Sony and it shows. Canon needs a shake-up in the upper mgmt/marketing area more than anything else. Push the damn envelope. Had this been released in 2014 there would be a lot less complaining. Not very many Canon non-cinema bodies have an EVF - and it's tough to see the back of the body in good light (and I'm tired of loupes and heavy external EVFs). Only one we had was the XC10 - I had it for a couple of months and just didn't love the image. So yeah - a few of us were serious buyers and looking forward to this, and mostly frustrated that Canon thinks they know better than we (the collective consumer).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You will always get compromised image quality and ergonomics from a jack of all trades, master of none camera

True, except that other manufacturers are putting better specs in their similar sized cameras. No one is expecting Alexa quality from a consumer mirror less. People aren't annoyed because it doesn't stack up against a cinema camera, people are annoyed because canon lacks features that others in the same class have have for some time now.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A bigger hole let's in more light, as in covers a larger area, this does not effect the intensity of light. Smaller hole - less coverage at same intensity.

This is not true. Covered area remains the same, regardless aperture size. Changing the F-stop doesn't change coverage - it changes intensity of light (exposure).

2 hours ago, Robin said:

Aperture equivalent is is useful to get same depth of field from a 25mm M4/3 lens to match a 50mm full frame. The 25mm needs a faster setting to match the same depth of field.

Aperture equivalent is useful for DoF, and also for determining the total amount of light the picture will be made from, and by that the expected quality and amount of noise. In essence, aperture equivalent is important when comparing cameras with different sizes of sensor, but also when comparing cropped image on the same sensor - like when trying to determine DoF, and quality/noise of severely cropped 4K video on EOS R.

So you see - aperture equivalent can be more useful than an F-stop - depending what you are doing.

2 hours ago, Robin said:

Regardless for exposure- f2 is f2 is f2 😉

If you are talking about exposure as a physical value (amount of light per unit area) - yes. But who cares for that? 😉

If you are talking about exposure triangle, things get messy since you have to match DoF (otherwise you won't get the same image), and then you have to change F-stop. And when you change the F-stop, you have to change ISO also. And then you realize that ISO 800 on FF is about the same as ISO 200 on MFT - in other words, you realize that manufacturers adjust ISO value according to pixel pitch and sensor size, since the same amount of light (the same real aperture size) and the same shutter speed result in different ISOs for photos of the same brightness. So... Regarding exposure in exposure triangle - no, f/2 is not f/2.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I knew all hell was gonna break lose today and everybody is entitled their opinions but calling people morons for being interested in purchasing this camera, or calling it a rip-off is just wrong & uncalled for. People have the right to be interested in this camera and nobody is forcing them to buy it. We all have different needs & backgrounds. So let's just all settlle down shall we?

Canon hinted at 2 other bodies coming. My guess is they're IBIS & next-gen sensor tech is still in R&D but they wanted to respond quickly to Nikon and this is what came out of it. This is their first effort, not the end all be all. I was expecting far worst actually, and at a higher price. Not trying to make excuses either, the severe 4k crop blows as is the HFR & lack of IBIS. They did make up for it in other parts (Eye AF, DPAF + Focus guide MF, 10-bit out, Control ring, VariND adapter etc) and the lens line-up is pretty impressive.

Nikon have I feel a much better rounded product with no major flaws, but it kinda lacks in flavor / fun-factor, especially the lenses. Feels like a more rugged industrial Sony clone. Can't say i find myself terribly excited about it even though i know it's the superior tool. As always I'll reserve final judgement until I try these out in person but the jury is still out as far as i'm concerned, the lens system being the real tipping point for me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

True, except that other manufacturers are putting better specs in their similar sized cameras. No one is expecting Alexa quality from a consumer mirror less. People aren't annoyed because it doesn't stack up against a cinema camera, people are annoyed because canon lacks features that others in the same class have have for some time now.

The problem is that the biggest critics were never going to buy one anyway. And if you look at the video specs, other than the 4K crop and no IBIS, the camera is pretty damn good and beats a lot of other camera’s offerings.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guess you never read any Shakespeare. Some mouth on you Mercer - geesh.

The frustrating part for me is you know damn well Canon *could have* done better with this one. No 4k60? No 1080p120? The a6000 had the latter, and the 2 year old 1dxII had the former upon release. I always have considered myself a Canon person at heart - just so pissed they're holding back - they're not listening to customers like Sony and it shows. Canon needs a shake-up in the upper mgmt/marketing area more than anything else. Push the damn envelope. Had this been released in 2014 there would be a lot less complaining. Not very many Canon non-cinema bodies have an EVF - and it's tough to see the back of the body in good light (and I'm tired of loupes and heavy external EVFs). Only one we had was the XC10 - I had it for a couple of months and just didn't love the image. So yeah - a few of us were serious buyers and looking forward to this, and mostly frustrated that Canon thinks they know better than we (the collective consumer).

Actually I dont think we really 'know this.' In fact nearly all the shortfall in performance seems to point to Canon being unable to pull data off the sensor fast enough - heavily cropped 4k, rolling shutter in cropped 4k, no 1080 120p, relatively poor fps in photos, no continuous eye focus etc... And the problem with mirrorless is that it is very sensor dependent. If Canon is behind here and cant catch up, this will be a bigger problem long term than simply starting with an underwhelming entry level camera.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The problem is that the biggest critics were never going to buy one anyway. And if you look at the video specs, other than the 4K crop and no IBIS, the camera is pretty damn good and beats a lot of other camera’s offerings.

Wrong. I would have bought one if not for the crop. I bet you Andrew would have as well. The crop and lack of 120fps is a joke in 2018. I could even forgive the lack of 4k60p and extra memory slot. But not the crop and 120....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hoo boy. Yeah, it's very inconspicuous to roll up with a fully rigged C200 - no one would ever think you're not shooting video there pal. It's nice to have a small camera where the situation requires it - gimbal work is much easier among 1000 other reasons. Poor analogy too by the way - you can easily create stunning shots with a small mirrorless camera - I mean we're talking about max 8.3 megapixel 4x. I'll bet your c200 is overkill for most of what we want to use video cameras for really. Paid gigs, sure. Very limiting though when it comes to being a wallflower - often times people think I'm shooting stills and I'm rolling video.

Tell me why, pray tell *should* it be an afterthought? Because you think so? Oh yeah, no everyone has $7k to splash down on a c200....

Well in LA, you still get hassled for trying to shoot with a DSLR if you have no permits. Plus once you rig the camera out with a wireless follow focus, matte box, and all the other accessories needed to do a proper video shoot, the camera hardly looks like a DSLR anymore. I've never seen a DSLR or mirrorless video shoot that was under the radar enough to not draw attention from the authorities. I never said you can't create good shots with a mirrorless camera. I've done it. I'm simply saying that people need to stop throwing a fit whenever a camera that is clearly designed for photography, doesn't have the video specs they are looking for. Its a stills camera with video thrown in. The video mode will always be somewhat bricked. No one complains when video cameras suck at taking stills. Hell most of them can't take stills at all.

Yes, I'm advocating buying the right tool for the job. Yes, that costs a lot of money sometimes. If you are a serious video shooter, you need to buy a camera with that in mind. If you are a video hobbyist, then a GH5 and an A7SII should be more than sufficient.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

True, except that other manufacturers are putting better specs in their similar sized cameras. No one is expecting Alexa quality from a consumer mirror less. People aren't annoyed because it doesn't stack up against a cinema camera, people are annoyed because canon lacks features that others in the same class have have for some time now.

So buy those competing cameras. Canon clearly has no interest in hybrid cameras. They make very good stills cameras and they make very good video cameras. They have decided to create specific products for those mediums and feel that serious video shooters are better served by their Cinema line. Time to move on. Panasonic and Sony have hybrid shooters covered.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The problem is that the biggest critics were never going to buy one anyway. And if you look at the video specs, other than the 4K crop and no IBIS, the camera is pretty damn good and beats a lot of other camera’s offerings.

I can't speak to other critics. I was optimistic earlier in this thread, before the specs came out, since I've liked every canon I've shot with.

the 4K crop is a deal breaker. The only reason I'd upgrade from my apsc is to get full frame. I shoot photos an video, sometimes in quick succession. I can't have my current lens behave differently depending on the mode I'm in. I'd rather just stick with apsc. If I didn't shoot any video then it wouldn't matter to me, of course, but most members on eoshd care about video. 120 fps being in 720 is also a downgrade for me, and that's a feature I've used on almost every project in the past year an a half.

so on the other hand I see the Nikon z6, which has much more of what I need, for less money. I'm not mad at canon or anythin stupid like that, but for me it is very clear that the eos r is not worth the money.

1 minute ago, shorty15 said:

So buy those competing cameras. Canon clearly has no interest in hybrid cameras. Time to move on. Panasonic and Sony have you covered.

yeah, unfortunately they don't. If I see a Sony or Panasonic (or canon) that looks like a worthwhile upgrade, I will! I'm pretty happy with what I've got at the moment, I just like keeping up with the news.